Get ready for electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket”

posted at 10:30 am on June 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Have you had a lot of fun watching the price of gasoline shoot out of sight this year at the pump? That will be just the appetizer. Thanks to new regulations from the Obama administration, power companies will shut down a significant number of coal-fired plants by 2014, and without any other reliable sources of mass-produced electricity, consumers will see their bills go up as much as 60% (via Instapundit and Newsalert):

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.

The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation’s electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.

You won’t just pay more to the utility company, either. The Chicago Tribune runs the math on public-sector cost increases in just their city:

What analysts know is that a portion of ComEd bills that pays electricity generators to reserve a portion of their power three years into the future will increase more than fourfold. That would translate into increases of $107 to $178 a year for an average residential customer in ComEd’s territory, starting in 2014, according to calculations by Chris Thomas, policy director for consumer advocacy group Citizens Utility Board.

In 2014 those so-called capacity costs are expected to add approximately $2.7 million over the previous year to electricity bills in Chicago Public Schools, $3.3 million for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District and $5.4 million to the city of Chicago, according to an analysis by Tenaska, aNebraska-based power development company that wants to develop a coal-fed power plant in central Illinois that would meet stringent regulations because it would capture and sequester emissions.

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

Even without cap-and-trade — or perhaps more accurately, even with a backdoor carbon tax through regulatory adventurism — Obama kept his promise to have electricity rates skyrocketing, and putting the burden on consumers, business, and taxpayers. Who said that every Obama promise comes with an expiration date?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

And don’t forget the removal of the National Bank back in 1832… the equivalent of our modern Federal Reserve.

The ways to get rid of government are many and varied. Some of these were defunded FIRST and then abolished via legislation, second… if you can find a way to see it violating the Constitution, then you can get rid of it via the court system.

No Congress can tell a later Congress what to spend money on. There are only a handful of Constitutionally required obligations to be met: the rest are if Congress wishes to fund them.

Each of these paths take the will and dedication to do it.

Currently those we elect lack that will.

We must change that and our view of government as ever-lasting, ever-ratcheting larger before you get to smaller government. I’ve had it with always fund it ratchet Republicans who accept every increase in size, scope and power of government as permanent. That has enabled our government to go from a necessary evil to a pure evil. Now it is we who must demonstrate the will not to vote for those who will not dismantle this creation of ours before it dismantles our society and our Nation.

This will be just another factor for a company to consider when they decide which country in which to build that new manufacturing plant. It’s amazing how little Bammie can rail against electrical power generation and they excoriate corporations for exporting jobs.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 crippled an already financially troubled industry. To bail out the airlines, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, which compensated airlines for the mandatory grounding of aircraft after the attacks. The act released $5 billion in compensation and an additional $10 billion in loan guarantees or other federal credit instruments.

Total Cost: $18.6 billion in 2008 dollars

What happened afterwards?

The Chrysler and airline bailout plans had a commonality: stock warrants. A provision inserted into the ATSS Act, which allowed the Treasury to purchase stock at below-market prices from any airline receiving a loan guarantee, allowed the Treasury to earn money. Reports varied on the total net profit, ranging from $141.7 million to $327 million. The loan guarantee program suffered one loss of about $23.2 million when ATA Airlines filed for bankruptcy protection.

By saying it is “made up” you are offending those who want to consider that, for no good reason. You need to be able to win the argument for your candidate regardless of the test the person you are arguing with is using.

GaltBlvnAtty on June 12, 2011 at 2:00 PM

LOL…mitt can’t win the South therefore he is unelectable. his poll numbers in GA show Obama beating him If mitt loses GA he is unelectable. I don’t care what the next 17 months bring I got a poll showing obama beating Mitt in GA therefore he is unelectable. The GOP can’t afford to lose GA’s 16 EV therefore Mitt is unelectable. Prove me wrong that mitt in unelectable……If Mitt loses GA that means he also loses VA and NC and if GA is a battleground state than Obama wins Mitt is unelectable.

see how easy it is to use a poll to prove someone is unelectable? It is the same as asking someone when they stopped hitting their wife. Palin or mitt’s eectablibity will not be known until you see how they run thier campaigns, how the people respond to the messages they break, to the debates they have, to the amount of money thay raise. Anyone that looks at “electabilty” at this stage of a election cycle are brainwashed people that have no knowledge of elections or campaigns or for that matter marxist PR.

I really have you in my prayers friend.
This is such a terrible time for many.
Us included.
Even though the cattle market is high, it’s hard to climb out of a hole of a decade of prices that don’t recoup your expenses, i.e. high fuel costs etc.
That’s why the hubby decided to drive truck around here.
But even that is defined by the govt.
Load restrictions over all the roads, permits, fees, low sulfur diesel causing horrendous problems that cost lots of $$ to deal with, high insurance fees,top that off with the railroads not delivering their trains on time as promised & holding up the loads of wheat, corn, sunflowers, etc that could be hauled.
Then you’ve got DOT & cops swarming all over your a$$ trying to get you for something, anything.
People have been moving here to my area in SW ND buying cheap houses & eventually getting on welfare.
Bcs it’s cheaper in some ways to live here & the crime is almost nonexistent etc.
I really pray things work out for you.

Anyone that looks at “electabilty” at this stage of a election cycle are brainwashed people that have no knowledge of elections or campaigns or for that matter marxist PR.

unseen on June 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM

So, if you are speaking with someone, an upcoming voter, who wonders if your candidate can be elected, rather than explaining why Sarah Palin can be elected you will unbrainwash him, educate him regarding elections and campaigns and marxist PR, and then trust that he will withdraw his question about whether Sarah Palin can be elected? Or, perhaps, you will just let this upcoming voter go because of his question? You could, instead, say something like: Well, of course she can be elected, because . . . , and list all of your good reasons.

Roku streams internet content from your computer from your router to your TV receiver, so that internet content is played over your TV. If you have a wireless network, Roku transmission from router to TV is wireless. If you don’t, you can use a cable.

With Roku, for example, you can play movies on your TV that are streamed to your computer (or other internet device) by Netflix, Amazon.com and others.

Most Roku channels use menu formats, so that (like Tivo) you can choose to watch any particular content at any time you want. But unlike Tivo, you don’t have to opt to download them first. You stream them over the internet any time you want. Instant gratification. It’s terrific.

Our rates on electricity shot up dramatically in January in PA when the PUC lifted the cap. We also experienced a lengthy frigid season this past winter.

What I pay for electricity for my humble all-electric townhouse is absurd. I do not know how families are coping with the multiple attacks on their budgets with the increase in the cost of gasoline, food, and electricity in our state.

The poor and working poor are being subsidized, but what is happening to the middle class?

The ObaMao economy is intentionally destroying our once prosperous country.

Truly this socialist enviro-maggot needs to be removed from power. I hope the third-party conservatives are paying close, sober attention. Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels (when he was considering a run) — none of them have ever toyed with the idea that jacking up energy costs would be a good and worthwhile policy, or even a regrettable but necessary result of responsible policy.

This leftist piece of shiite stands alone in his destructive mindset. Retire this rotten prick in 2012.

Truly this socialist enviro-maggot needs to be removed from power. I hope the third-party conservatives are paying close, sober attention. Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels (when he was considering a run) — none of them have ever toyed with the idea that jacking up energy costs would be a good and worthwhile policy, or even a regrettable but necessary result of responsible policy.

This leftist piece of shiite stands alone in his destructive mindset. Retire this rotten pr!ck in 2012.

Remember when ObaMao was boosting the thermostat in the WH because he wanted the hothouse temps that his Hawaiian bloodstream demanded? Then he could run around in shirt sleeves and his wife could sport sleeveless outfits to show off those toned arms.

In a more sane world, you’d admit that man-made global warming cannot be definitely proven or disproven based upon today’s science. And if you’re running the country the way you run an effective business, the only rational approach is cost-benefit analysis as to what action should or should not be taken.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Exactly.

Which has been Mitt Romney’s position has been all along. Here’s what he had to say about that in from his book:

Even extreme mitigation measure taken by the US and other developed nations will have no appreciable effect on slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. Massive spending–or even worse, borrowing for emission reduction–would only make us less able to remediate the effects of warming later.”

He wraps up his thoughts with his “no-regrets” stance and defines this as “taking action only when doing so is also consistent with our objective of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil. Internationally, we should work to limit the increase in emissions in global greenhouse gases, but in doing so, we shouldn’t put ourselves in a disadvantageous economic position that penalizes American jobs and economic growth.”

In a more sane world, you’d admit that man-made global warming cannot be definitely proven or disproven based upon today’s science. And if you’re running the country the way you run an effective business, the only rational approach is cost-benefit analysis as to what action should or should not be taken.

bayam on June 12, 2011 at 1:29 PM
What gobbledegook claptrap elitist smug backward thinking: So, you admit that mmglobalwarming is not subject to proof, but then you are going to run the country doing a cost-benefit analysis, which itself is delusional model crap-in/crap out meaningless slop. Your genius will allow a cost-benefit analysis upon which to control previously free people, even though you admit that there are no tools to determine whether or not there even is a problem.

Anyone that looks at “electabilty” at this stage of a election cycle are brainwashed people that have no knowledge of elections or campaigns or for that matter marxist PR.

unseen on June 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM

And anyone who doesn’t consider electability is simply a groupie who only cares about revenge for their favorite celebrity. They don’t care to win a stupid election, it’s all about who, did what, to whom, and how to get even.

If this election isn’t about getting rid of Obama it is about nothing.

electibility is the only positive your candidate has and that only because he has not engaged in the campaign yet. Just because it is the only thing your candidate can run on doesn’t mean it is important. In fact all it means is that it is a mirage

I’m simply pointing out the fact that there’s no simple, obvious, or easy way to grow out of the near economic collapse of our financial system that occurred three years ago.

Sure there is, a $500B tax cut to stimulate the economy, repeal ObamaCare to prevent businesses from fearing healthcare costs, $900B of government spending cuts, and the removal of all sorts of government handcuffs on small businesses. If Obama did these things then the economy would soar within two years, and he might even be able to get reelected.

It may sound counter-intuitive, but a number of preeminent economists outside the US are recommending that American policymakers engage in more deficit spending (not Medicare / Medicaid) to keep the economy moving if the private sector fails to pick up the slack.

Why do you go to such great pains to explain Keynesian economics? Everyone on here already knows this concept is flawed and that these “preeminent economists outside the US” who are pushing this are socialists. You need to come up to speed on this.

I hear that Obama is going after Govt waste. Evidently just now thought it would be a good idea. Are we wasting anymore like this?

“In a mind-boggling example of government corruption, billions of dollars flown to Iraq for post-invasion “reconstruction” have vanished and may never be recovered.

Bundled in chunks of $100 bills, the cash was sent from the U.S. to Iraq in turboprop military cargo planes known as C-130 Hercules. About $2.4 billion fit in each aircraft and 21 flights made trips, transporting a total of $12 billion in American currency to Iraq by 2004…

This is simply the latest of many reports documenting the pervasive fraud and waste in Iraq … ”

Not only will our electric bills skyrocket, but so will the cost of all consumer goods as stores pass on their higher operating expenses to consumers. Workers will be out of jobs when coal plants close. Where will we get the additional power needed to plug in all those electric cars we’re supposed to buy?